nathanlake wrote:

Solo & Butch - I have to believe that neither of you rely on your photographs for supporting you. If you do, then you need to take a short business class so that you understand how it should work. The first time you see someone selling pictures that only you have the legal right to sell...AND you are having a hard time making ends meet, you will change your mind.


Nathan,

I can't speak for Solo, I assure you MY work and photographs support me very well. I really don't need a business class on how it "should" work. I know very well how it DOES work.

My only source of income is through my business (sole proprietorship of a portrait-wedding-action sports-comecial studio). My studio rent is paid on time and in full. My utilities are paid on time and in full. My insurance is current and paid in full. I have no debt as far as my business is concerened. When I need equipment or materials. It is paid for in full when ordered. Somehow, to me, I think I have a good handle on business and how it works.

My business model works very well for me. If you choose to work by a different model, secure exclusive rights to an event and still have difficulty in making ends meet. Who really would benefit more from a business class? I don't need or expect exclusivity to be successful. I am uncomfortable with protectionist policies becoming the norm. As you have pointed out, even with the protection of exclusivity, there are no guarantees you will make any sales, let alone earn a profit from those sales.

Butch -

Given your description of the kinds of work you do, I suspect you simply don't understand how the types of event photography that other posters are discussing function. Put simply, the lines you draw in the sand work fine for assignment work but wouldn't fly at all for the kind of work being discussed. There is no singular client who can pay you a defined single rate...there are a multitude of people willing to purchase a multitude of images. There is a single event organizer who is in the position of brokering the opportunity of exclusive coverage in exchange for a fee. That other people are willing to work speculatively and you aren't doesn't mean that you're somehow smarter and more successful in your career...it just means they've chosen a different specialty with different customs. I work primarily in assignments as well, but I've also shot plenty of rock concerts and events on spec in order to shop the images around after the fact...if purchasing exclusivity was an option there I'd jump on it. And I'm aware that when I shoot concerts I have to wear a different hat and approach the business of shooting differently than when I'm being booked for portraiture or fashion work as it's a market with different rules.

But I don't see that your denigrating the customs of the world of event photography is relevant. Focus Locus hit it on the head: exclusive photo rights arrangements are how that world works, and folks walking in with pro-level cameras and shooting the same event on a lark is simply a violation of the event terms.

shatterkiss,

I understand completely how the system you describe works. I have turned down several such offers because they demanded extremely large sums up front for exclusivity with no track record of past statistics to warrant such investment or the agreements they wished me to sign, strictly limited my ability to generate income after the event. For those events that were willing to negotiate more equitable arrangements, I accepted. Unfortunately, under most event exclusivity agreements, the ability to generate a profit is stacked too heavily in favor of the event organizer. Which is why I choose not to work under such agreements.

If my earlier comments came off as denigrating I apologize. My intent was only to describe my views. I may have not bee as polite as I should have been. There is no right or wrong model for how individual photographers choose to conduct business in an ethical manner. Only that I choose not to work on spec alone or buy in for exclusivity on the vast majority of my event work. I do not condone other pros showing up and infringing upon duly appointed official photographers. Myself or otherwise. No one has a right to violate event rules.

I am no smarter or no more successful than a great many others in this business. It was mentioned that I apparently was unaware how business worked and I would benefit by taking a class. I simply explained that I am very well aware how business works. I am also well aware what is customary in the realm of event photography.

Case in point -

There is a long-time annual youth sporting event held in my community. Several years ago the organizers contacted me about providing event photography services. They showed me a contract they procured from a similar event elsewhere. I reviewed the document as well as the number of participants, number of individual games played and calculated my costs and overhead to provide the services. The numbers just did not work out to offer the profit I needed to make the investment. I pointed out that because they would allow local newspaper coverage of the event, they could not offer me total exclusivity as both major papers offer the sale of reprints online, not just published images, but all of the images their PJs shoot. I was not going to insist they turn away the local media, I just factored this in my decision and calculations. I presented the organizers with a counter offer that made us partners in the venture with equal risk. They declined.

For three years they were able to secure the services of photographers from outside the area who agreed to their terms. A different photographer each year, because they discovered under the original terms, there indeed was no way to operate without a loss. Two of the three photographers in question demanded a refund of the fee they paid the organizers. I'm not sure if they ever received a refund, however, I do know they made life miserable for the organizers.

Two years ago the organizers contacted me and asked if I would be inclined to reconsider accepting the job under my initial counter offer. I did. We worked out a marketing strategy that benefited all involved. Sales have gone well and the organizers receive a share of the sales based on a threshold. As sales go higher, the percentage paid to the organization as a donation, also increases. By working in this manner we both benefit and have equal incentive to market my services. In fact, the organizers share, this past season, was nearly double, what they had initially demanded in that first offering.

I may be wrong, but I think I get it.

I am a photojournalist shooting for a community newspaper. Last summer, I took my camera to an equestrian event to shoot photos for my own portfolio. While there, I learned there was an official photographer at the show.
I was told I could shoot to my heart's content but was not permitted to sell any of the photos (the show was on private property).
I shot a lot of photos that day and was very happy with the results, but I respected the other photographer's right to make a living at her craft and did not attempt to sell any of the photos I took.
As a salaried photojournalist, I am fortunate in that I don't have to worry about where my next paycheque is coming from, and I believe anyone with the guts to make a living as a pro photographer should be respected, especially when they are an official shooter at an event.
IMHO, my shots were as good as the show photographer's and that was my reward

Well said shatterkiss, you seem like a pretty sharp fella

ButchM on the other hand is confusing me a little bit. If I am following right he starts out against exclusive contracts then says one of the reason's he turned down an event was because the press folks were allowed to sell online and he would not have exclusive rights.

Then when the organizers came around to his way of thinking he wound up paying them nearly twice the original offer.

I dunno, I'm just an ol' country boy, but that don't add up to me



Marty

Marty,

You are correct, shatterkiss is a very sharp and telanted fella. His posts have always helped me.

I'm an old time country boy as well. Their original contract only guaranteed that THEY would profit no matter what transpired. My counter offer was written in a manner, if successful, WE would profit.

I said, I refused to pay a large sum up front for exclusivity. As I pointed out they could NOT deliver that and still allow the local papers coverage and preclude the papers from their normal routine. I wasn't about to pay for something they could not deliver. If the event organizers were to limit the papers usage of the images, it would be very likely, the papers wouldn't bother to cover the events. (I had worked for both papers in the past and have direct knowledge of how they operate) The event benefits from that coverage.

I woulkd like to add, this was one of many items on the original contract I took issue with and many were negotiated. As in THEY wanted to have total control over my pricing. Their pricing was rediculously high for this market. Probably why the other three photogs failed.

Rather than hand over a large check in advance, I opted for a partnership. Where both I and the organizers work together and share the profit. I set a threshold or minimum of sales (equal to my net costs for working the event). If my sales were below that minimum, I owed the event nothing. If my sales exceeded the minimum, the event received a percentage of my enitre sales. As the sales figures go higher so does the percentage paid to the event. Like I said, now the event organizers have a vested interest in my success, and I in their's. The more I make, the more they make. That is free enterprise. The event earned a commission. Far different from collecting an entry fee. Sales this past year were excellent, therefore they profited more than they would have from their initial contract. So did I.

I also contributed to the advertising expenses via sponsorship, leading up to the event on radio and newsprint as well as the event program.

In country terms .... like the tale of a pig in a poke .... I was very interested in purchasing the pig .... I just made sure the pig was actually in the poke before I paid for it.

I realize not everyone would take the time to negotiate a better agreement. Many organizers would have sent me packing on my counter offer. In fact, this one did ... for three years. With the number of good shooters out there willing to work events, It's far easier for organizers to dictate what is customary. However, it is a choice to work under those customs. Currently, I have the luxury to choose not to.

I see.......Thanks

Marty

Rocketball wrote:
Just thought I'd post some thoughts from the other point of view ........

I had a similar experience a few years ago at the PONY Nationals fastpitch softball tourney, but I was NOT the "official photogrpher". I was the "other photographer".

I was one of the Dads watching my daughter play and was shooting her teams games from the sidelines, as I always do. Half way thru their first game, the tourney director approaches me and asked who gave me permission to shoot the game. Well, I said "nobody, I'm here to watch my daughter's team play". He told me I had to stop shooting because they had paid for photographer to be at the tourney.

Long story short...... After a long and heated discussion with the tourney director, I was escorted out of the complex because the photographer said I was impacting his sales. Total BS. After further discussion and negoiation with the tourney director, I agreed to leave my gear in my truck and sit in the stands to watch my daughter's team play. Needless to say, I was watched like a hawk the rest of the week.

Anyway, my biggest gripe about this was the fact that I paid my entry fee to get in, was NEVER on the field, and their was NO signage that warned or prohibited anyone from shooting pictures or video.

I honestly feel like I was targeted by the photographer because of the gear I had, and they felt threatened. There were plenty of other parents there taking pictures of their kids, but no one else was told to stop.

Even though the photographer said they had a contract naming them "the exclusive provider of photographic services" (that was the terminology used by the photographer), that contract does not pertain to me. The contract is between the tourney and the photographer, not me. I paid my entry fee as a spectator, I was in the spectator area, was not selling my images, and there was no paperwork or signage stating I was not allowed to shoot. Like it or not, I was not doing anything illegal. I cooporated with the tourney director because I didn't want to cause any trouble or make a scene. I was there to watch my daughter compete in a national event, so that's what I did.

I guess the reason I'm posting this is just to remind everyone that although you may be the "official photographer" and have a contract, everyone at the event has certain rights, and you need to respect those rights, like it or not, just as we "the other photographers" need to respect your rights.



Rocket

Interesting comments and situation. I was the "Official Photographer" for state LL tournaments held by one of the regions here in AZ. You were singled out because of your equipment. I had a gentleman shooting at one of the games with a 5D and 70-200. I assumed he was a dad and started a conversation. Turns out he is not a dad and was shooting at the request of a dad. I advised him I had no problem with him shooting the 1 boy but shooting the entire team and giving images away was an issue. When advised by the district admin of the arrangment we had he chose to leave. The emails started flying about rights and "nobody can stop me from shooting my kid"
I met the dad the next game and invited him to join me in the shooting well ( he was shooting with a MKIIN and asked that he only shoot his child. A short discussion and he understood the economics of it and limited his shots to his son. No more problems the rest of the tournament.
Respect what the official photog is doing and limit your shooting to your child and there would have been no problem. put your self in his shoes.

just my 2 cents
Mike
There is 1 school I won't shoot in our area as the sidelines are a sea of white glass and I choose not to ask parents to stop shooting their kids.

Roketball -

We've heard from photogs, and "dad's with cameras" - now how about from a tournament director?

I have a unique situation - because I am also the DA that Sports Shooter is talking about. My agreement with him is exclusive and I get a percentage. The money I get from him help pay for the baseballs, fields, etc. for the dad to let his kid play in an all-star tournament. If I let the dad give away photos to his team, then SS not only loses money, but I have less funds to work with during tournaments.

Every year, I have to explain:
1) I don't know who the person is taking photos. With a contacted photographer, I require nationwide background checks - I get the information from the photographer and I do the check. First, it is required by LL for me to do so, since they are going to have continuous contact with the kids.

2) Which leads me to I don't know WHY you are taking the photos. The end of #1 makes me comfortable that the person taking the photos is doing it for the right reason. I would think that any mom or dad would appreciate that.

3) Every attempt must be made to shoot all teams and, NOT just those in the semi-finals, finals or high income areas. (Mike and I even shot team photos for a low income area league - for just the cost of processing. It was the FIRST time the kids in that league had team photos taken EVER.) Another local company contacted me before I borught Mike on. They told me they could only do a few teams (high income leagues) and not all teams. My answer was no.

As the DA, I have a responsibility to protect the safety of the kids in my program. That is first and foremost to me because of my position in LL. Second is that every kid has the oppotunity to see themselves in print. Then, comes the business aspect of helping pay for the cost of the tournament.

There are more things involved behind the scenes than just not letting a dad shoot just for the "exclusive" photog to earn money.

Mark

Mlane I agree with what you said. The offical photographer will have the liablility insurance and the dads with cameras wont. But there are other issues also. As a photographer that does photography and specializes in photography of all kinds, there are other issues that come into play if your not aware of things when your the soccor mommie.

This is an example of what had/has happened to a photographer this link explains alot of the other issues of making sure you have an offical photographer. And know who he/she is. there is alot to read there.

http://www.pbrbuckingbulls.com/

You also must know who the photographer is, you dont just want someone to show up and take pictures, and you dont know them, they show up only once, and you have no clue as to how to contact them, and they are taking pictures of your kids! for what? you hope not for any thing bad.

Also I had it happen where a photog used me as there advertisement. People would come to his booth at an event I was at, and ask, are you the photographer thats in the arena. he would say yes. And his work was not up to standard. His prices were sky high. The lady later came to me because i was in the arena doing the pictures, and said "she thought it over, she wanted her money back, I looked at her and said "what" i didnt sell you that picture, I dont print on sight. mine are from a real lab. That was when that phtotog and I didnt get along. Its just curtious to the offical photog that has spent hours, prepairing for the pro job he has been contracted to do.

Just my 3 cents worth.

Mark,

Thanks for adding another point of view to this topic.

I totally agree with EVERYTHING you posted and can appreciate looking at this from your point of view. I have been invloved with organizing and running tourneys in the past, so I know how much work and expense it is. Most times it's a thankless job that you spend countless hours doing and no one sees. If it wasn't for the vendor fees and corporate sponsors, most of these programs would vanish from existence, so I realize the importance of that income. I also comend you for reaching out and assisting with programs the are less fortunate. I'm sure the parents will remember that forever.

As a parent I do appreciate what you (and others) do as the director to make sure our kids are safe. It goes a long way in making our weekends enjoyable. Thank you.

What I did not appreciate was being singled out because the photographer viewed me as a threat. When the director approached me and explained what was going on, I did exactly what he asked me to do and followed his requests to the letter, but that wasn't good enough for the photographer. Until my gear was gone from sight, I was a scab that was there to steal his business, and there was nothing I could say or do that was going to change his mind.

Anyway, thanks again for your POV.

Scott

I'd actually ban the official photographer as per the USA understating of it.

If I'm an official photographer at an event, I'm working for the PR, the Event Organiser or some of the Exhibitors.

I really don't see why any single individual should have exclusive rights to shoot the event for any reason ~ in fact under EU competition rules this can be challenged.

And I certainly don't see why I am 'forced' to buy a photo from any single person it only causes bad feelings.

As usual I do have a few exceptions, I'll do dress functions and have a studio setting and staff and probably a room for this purpose ~ sure I don't want anyone else shooing in there.

Also there are usually exclusion areas for the public, it's enough to keep this enforced IMO, I get my blue photographer's flash and I go anywhere.

Confronting the public and blaming them for falling picture sales is rather pathetic and ultimately will cause the death of this stuff.

I've had my own confrontations, as a press photographer I've run foul of the 'official photographer' ~ and so far, none of the 'official photographers' release pics to the press either ~ so where's the kick back for the clubs?

I treat 'official photographers USA style' with the same respect that I treat toll road operators for publicly funded motorways and bridges. In other words, I pay enough to the clubs already and then admission fees .... see where I'm going.

Rocketball wrote: I guess the reason I'm posting this is just to remind everyone that although you may be the "official photographer" and have a contract, everyone at the event has certain rights, and you need to respect those rights, like it or not, just as we "the other photographers" need to respect your rights.

gbee wrote:
I really don't see why any single individual should have exclusive rights to shoot the event for any reason ~ in fact under EU competition rules this can be challenged.

[snip]

As usual I do have a few exceptions, I'll do dress functions and have a studio setting and staff and probably a room for this purpose ~ sure I don't want anyone else shooing in there.

Also there are usually exclusion areas for the public, it's enough to keep this enforced IMO, I get my blue photographer's flash and I go anywhere.

So exclusivity is fine as long as it's in your favor, but not otherwise? Do you also believe that concert promoters should not be able to ban video cameras from events (which often allow exclusive press access)? Should you be allowed to bring a camera into the audience of a Broadway play (which hire exclusive photographers and videographers)? And wouldn't you get tossed from Wimbledon if you sat in the stands with a pro camera and long lens? I know that you wouldn't even get into the US Open with one...they frisk you at the gates. Do you object to that as well?

I treat 'official photographers USA style' with the same respect that I treat toll road operators for publicly funded motorways and bridges. In other words, I pay enough to the clubs already and then admission fees .... see where I'm going.

I don't see where you're going, actually. Do you refuse to drive on those roads, essentially voting with your dollars? Or do you flaunt the rules in protest, driving those roads anyway and refusing to pay the tolls? Once you start to pick and choose which rules to follow based on political beliefs, doesn't that then give license for everyone else to do the same? So if I object to intellectual property laws I'm now fully empowered to violate your copyright at my whim? Or I can come take your car because I reject the nature of personal property ownership?

It seems to me that if an event organizer sets a policy in place that abides by the governing laws you can also abide by it or you can register your objections, but it doesn't give you justification to violate the policy just because you disagree with it.

If I'm setting up the event, yes. If it's public then no. Now having a blanket photo ban is entirely up to the organisers, obviously.

Major and even upstart minor concert promoters allow press access for typically the first three numbers, then you're outa there. All major sports have blanket photo bans and strict rules for the professional covering the event or course as in Golf.

Golf especially is often restricted to just two greens with a special pass for a select few ~ in fact some Golf is covered by skilled amateurs attached to the clubs for free and distributed from the press tents ~ it's a fairly closed shop at the top ~ who'd want to be there anyway.

I avoid toll roads.

In any event I'm really referring to these little Hitler photographers at these low level family gatherings and I support any parent's right to take their own children's pictures at any event.

shatterkiss wrote: So exclusivity is fine as long as it's in your favor, but not otherwise? .

gbee wrote:
Major and even upstart minor concert promoters allow press access for typically the first three numbers, then you're outa there. All major sports have blanket photo bans and strict rules for the professional covering the event or course as in Golf.

I'm well aware - I've shot for the music industry here in the US on and off for 12 years. But promoters/publicists/artists/labels will also pick and choose what press are given access - it's not a blanket "you identify yourself as press and you're allowed to shoot". And further, other shooters will be given backstage access, side-stage access, access to shoot an entire set...while ticket-buyers aren't allowed cameras at all and might be kicked out for sneaking one in. A publication like Rolling Stone will give promotional consideration like a guaranteed cover article in exchange for better access than anyone else gets. I've seen photo passes revoked for all but one agency's shooters at a big-ticket show - that agency obviously bought exclusivity to make sure they could move their images.

My point is simply that commercial exclusivity is the norm for private events. If you bought a ticket to it, it's no longer public and you're subject to the organizers' policies. If you disagree with the policies, don't buy the ticket. If we were talking about a kid's little league game at a public park that relied on taxpayer funding I'd probably feel differently. But at a commercial event designed to be profitable for various parties...it's not the photographer's interests I'm respecting, it's the event organizer's policies, whatever the reasons behind them. I don't necessarily have any right to photograph my child in a sporting event, my horse in a rodeo, my car in the Indy 500, my painting in someone else's museum...it may be my child, but it's someone else's event and venue. My choice is to attend or not, not attend but individually reject rules I don't agree with.

Well you should.

I'd be very slow to surrender these rights.

I was a fine art photographer for five years, been inside plenty of museums, with the artist to shoot their stuff for them ~~ don’t be silly now, please.


shatterkiss wrote: I don't necessarily have any right to photograph my child in a sporting event, my horse in a rodeo, my car in the Indy 500, my painting in someone else's museum...it may be my child, but it's someone else's event and venue. My choice is to attend or not, not attend but individually reject rules I don't agree with.

gbee wrote:
I was a fine art photographer for five years, been inside plenty of museums, with the artist to shoot their stuff for them ~~ don’t be silly now, please.


Since you were with the artist to shoot their stuff for them, it is probable that you had permission. Were I to step into that gallery and shoot without permission, I would be likely asked to leave.

Shatterkiss has made salient, real world points that reflect the realities of live event photography of people playing/performing, situations that more reflect the predicament of the original poster. Rocketball has made salient points as well, from the point of view of a parent (who just happens to have professional photography equipment) who bought a ticket to see his own kid play. This is a continual conondrum.

From the official photographer's standpoint, the meet host is generally the most effective enforcer of any exclusivity they hope to enjoy. Establishing the role of the meet hosts in diseminating a clear and posted policy for attendees is best made part of the initial agreement package between the host and photographer.

The point has been made that the attendee is not a party to that agreement. True. The attendee, upon entering private property and paying admission to do the same, is subject to a different agreement... one with the meet host.

That agreement is never signed, but it is enforced (and equally violated) all the same. No video taping, for example, while handycam lights litter the stands. It is within the host's power to ask that the video taper put down the camera or leave, if the policy is no video taping.

Your son or daughter could be the lead in a Broadway musical, but the theater ushers will still ask you to cease and desist from videotaping all the same. Unless you have secured permission ahead of time.

The host grants or deny's that permission. It is in the official photographer's interest to deny photo access to others, but it is not necessarily in the official photographer's purview or power to do so. It is a matter best left to the host, and the agreement between the official photographer and the host should have a consequence to the host if the host fails to protect or provide the whatever exclusivity the official photographer needs to justify the terms of the contract.

I never found the official website or a pamphlet reference to where my son's college graduating class pictures were posted. I watched three official photographers from the stands take about 1500 student pictures. The first photographer had 50% of his flash photos misfire (no battery pack) or couldn't find focus quick enough; one was shooting from below a 6 foot stage for the diploma handouts, and the other one caught each student walking down the stairs, never asking to stop but capturing them as they walked directly at him. I wonder how they turned out, not that I was very impressed by their experience. Fortunately we shot our own pictures in the stadium parking lot as did many parents. Those pictures are the only memory.

I think that the few times that the official photographer should be concerned about parents shooting sports photos of their kids is not worth the aggravation or the bad press. Anyone can sit in the stands with a 400mm lens on a crop camera and a 1.4x teleconverter, get the same shots and be perfectly within his right to do so, at least according to the 1st Amendment. Most of these sports events are on public property (any taxpayer financed land or structure).

Imagine if a group of parents approached the photographer and requested that he is not given permission photograph their children or post their photos on the internet unless he has a signed release from them. I don't see how the side deals between the event sponser and the photographer are binding to the public, especially if you obey the "posted rules" of the event. There could be legal reprocussions if as a paying customer you were escorted out of the event area because you were shooting pictures with "professional" equipment, and absolutely for confiscating camera equipment in the process.

Barry Pehlman wrote:

I think that the few times that the official photographer should be concerned about parents shooting sports photos of their kids is not worth the aggravation or the bad press. Anyone can sit in the stands with a 400mm lens on a crop camera and a 1.4x teleconverter, get the same shots and be perfectly within his right to do so, at least according to the 1st Amendment. Most of these sports events are on public property (any taxpayer financed land or structure).


I don't think that majority of us are concerned about parents shooting photos. As a matter of fact, from what I've read in the past, most are willing to even answer questions parents may have concerning their gear. Personally I would never waste my time nor chance alienating potential clients by policing parental camera usage. The problem is the supposed "pro/hobbyist" who arrives unannounced with no prior introductions or presentation, shoots the event and then works the crowd handing out cards or leaving leaflets on windshields. I've also seen guys that no one knew nor had ever seen before shoot an event never to be seen or heard from again. Are they a hobbyist having fun? Are they shooting for stock? Are they some kind of pervert looking for subject matter? No one knows and that's a problem.


Imagine if a group of parents approached the photographer and requested that he is not given permission photograph their children or post their photos on the internet unless he has a signed release from them. I don't see how the side deals between the event sponser and the photographer are binding to the public, especially if you obey the "posted rules" of the event.


First of all any parent is free to approach me and request I not take or post pictures of their child. And each league I meet with is told this up front. Most of those same leagues/teams also post that detail on their web sites when they announce that we will be attending and shooting games. Secondly although print sales to parents would not require a model release, I have them sign one when they register to play. I do occasionally get requests to use images commercially so this saves me a lot of hassles. As a parent do you require that your local paper obtain a release prior to printing your child's picture along with game results or do you proudly and boast that your child's picture was in the paper? Any agreements signed between a league and myself are not binding to parents of the organization nor is there any reference to parents shooting photos in any of my contracts. Any exclusivity defined in the contract pertains only to uninvited, unknown, and unapproved entities that intend to solicit. I guess a league or township could technically post "No Soliciting" signs at each sports venue if they chose to do so or would that, using your logic, violate someone's 1st Amendment right as well? Would you attend your child's game and then attempt to sell hot dogs you cooked in the parking lot and at a price below hot dogs being sold by the local vendor? The vendor is an officially approved entity of the league so why wouldn't the approved photographer have the same consideration?


There could be legal reprocussions if as a paying customer you were escorted out of the event area because you were shooting pictures with "professional" equipment, and absolutely for confiscating camera equipment in the process.

Using the same example above, what legal repercussions would you have after being prevented from selling your hot dogs? Why should there be a selective double standard applied to shooting and selling event photos as opposed to selling hot dogs or t-shirts?

Barry, you raise some great points that echo other sentiments expressed in this thread. There is no denying them. Sometimes the work of the official photographer sucks. On top of that, how dare they even think to want to intefere with a family desiring to memorialize a milestone moment in their lives. There is no argument on this one.

However, the specific logistics of access can be debated:

Barry Pehlman wrote:
"Anyone can sit in the stands with a 400mm lens on a crop camera and a 1.4x teleconverter, get the same shots and be perfectly within his right to do so, at least according to the 1st Amendment. Most of these sports events are on public property (any taxpayer financed land or structure)."


This is not always true. I've been to several indoor sports venues where the structure was publically financed, located on city/county property, but privately run by a contracted concessioner. Rules for cameras in the stands include specifics like "no lens longer than 6" (literally), and "no focal length longer than 200mm" (again, literally). The rules are enforced by security at the gates, where coolers and purses are given a going over prior to admittance.

While the above circumstance doesn't typify commencement ceremonies or field sports, it can be found with regularity in elite level gymnastics and concerts. Whether this is morally or constitutionally right or wrong hasn't prevented these lens/camera restrictions from taking place, and to my knowlege, such lens length/type restrictions have not yet been legally challenged to the point of unenforceablity.


Barry Pehlman wrote: "Imagine if a group of parents approached the photographer and requested that he is not given permission photograph their children or post their photos on the internet unless he has a signed release from them."


That would be interesting indeed. I've only seen one or two parents object, and only once or twice in a very long while. The lone objectors tried to rally other parents to join them to bolster the strength of their cause, but failed to convince the other parents of any real threat, and those parents that otherwise might not have even been aware of the photography service were it not for the squawking end up wanting to buy pictures. (Funny how that works out sometimes.) Still, the wish of the parent who initially objected is always respected, and their child doesn't get photographed.

Using the same example above, what legal repercussions would you have after being prevented from selling your hot dogs? Why should there be a selective double standard applied to shooting and selling event photos as opposed to selling hot dogs or t-shirts?

Steve, obviously you run a professional sports photo business, but for every one of you there are other "photographers" trying to ruin it for people trying to just take pictures of their kids or neighbor's children. Frankly I don't want to be forced to buy my kids pictures from someone else. I went through the 1-12 grade school photos including multiple sports pictures for 3 kids. After so many years of this it became a PIA, not to mention expensive. This recently spun off to official Santa pictures of the kids and in another place Santa with our dog, church photos, etc. I mean enough is enough. I don't get the hot-dog reference since they wouldn't create the same memories.

If the majority of sports event photographers aren't worried about the parents then why are the event enforcers confiscating equipment from parents and escorting them to the gate if they don't cooperate as one post claims? And the "pro-hobbiest"... is he really your worst nightmare, or is his appearance the end to food on your table? If any group should complain it should be the wedding photographers who must deal with guest's cameras competing with theirs all day. In that case the photographer has a choice of making a scene, or just going with the flow and live to book a referred wedding from the bride the next time. In all the years I shot weddings I never had another photographer trying to compete with me. It really shouldn't be that big a deal in the sports event arena either. In a perfect world the best photo wins, not a photographer's exclusivity, including the good possibility that the "pro hobbiest's" photos might really suck.

Focus Locus: The elite levels of sporting events in a privately financed buildings is not the issue. They can kick you out for bringing your own popcorn if they want. This is about local sporting events at places that parents can shoot photos of their children without worrying about the some guy from event central who would be more than happy to put you in an armlock before it occurs to him that he crossed any lines.

Interesting thread.

I am just curious to know what all the official photographers and those backing their corner do when they go to watch their own children taking part in say sporting events. Do you buy photos from the event photographer or take a camera?

Thanks

Nice point Snapperjack. Although my daughter is only 1, i am sure when she is older i will be snapping her taking part in sports.

I usually shoot indoors and at most events they have barriers separating the public from the players. For me, the parents can shoot all day from behind the barriers as long as they don't sell the photos. I would not even mind the parents selling the photos as long as I did not have to pay any commission charges. All we want is a level playing field.

Another point: Where did the official photographer get his training? I think the same way the pro-hobbiest got his training. You guys should only be angry at yourselves.

I don't want to get sucked back into this, but there's one thing I have to say:

The word is "hobbyist", not "hobbiest". As in, "one who practices a hobby", not "one who is the most hobbi of them all". Also, isn't "pro-hobbiest (sic)" a contradiction in terms? Doesn't practicing a hobby professionally make it a vocation and no longer a hobby?

Thank you.